Let's have a VAR World Cup for all the people that want the right decisions to be made and a non-VAR World Cup for all the people who want their game back but don't mind games being decided by incorrect decisions.
But VAR doesn't stop games being decided by incorrect decisions, as we saw today. Stop fooling yourself.
It doesn't and it's not 100% (no-one has claimed it to be so) but without it, we'd have half a dozen games that were decided by incorrect decisions.
What's better? 5, 6 or 7? Or 1?
Well you just did by saying it would be a world cup for "all the right decisions to be made"
Indeed i will give up on this fool too...stu will be on here later saying when that was quoted.....saves him looking...
It seems to me like every time VAR gets a decision wrong, everyone comes on here to have the same debate - the pro VAR people will make excuses for it "its not perfect and can't ever be" and the anti VAR people come on saying it's the worst thing ever and should be scrapped. Then you get the reverse, when they get a call right all the pro's come on heralding VAR as the second coming and best thing since sliced bread and the anti's respond with "well what about XY and Z decisions they got wrong"
Being realistic VAR is here to stay. It is NOT perfect and never will be. BUT there are significant issues with it in it's current form and it feels like a wrong call is always just around the corner, and that's my main problem with it in the context of this world cup - this competition is too big, too important to be trialing this technology. If it's not ready for the premier league or champions league it is NOT ready for the world cup.
None of the pro-VAR crowd has answered why the Premier League/boards/English FA and Champions League teams/board/UEFA do not have the same level of confidence in VAR that FIFA has shown by chucking it into the world cup.
Do they not get decisions wrong in the premier league and champions league?
edit to add (because I know it's coming Callum... lol) Yes I would MUCH rather England went out of the world cup to a wrong ref decision if VAR wasn't there, rather than to a wrong VAR decision when it is there.
It seems to me like every time VAR gets a decision wrong, everyone comes on here to have the same debate - the pro VAR people will make excuses for it "its not perfect and can't ever be" and the anti VAR people come on saying it's the worst thing ever and should be scrapped. Then you get the reverse, when they get a call right all the pro's come on heralding VAR as the second coming and best thing since sliced bread an the anti's respond with "well what about XY and Z decisions they got wrong"
Being realistic VAR is here to stay. It is NOT perfect and never will be. BUT there are significant issues with it in it's current form and it feels like a wrong call is always just around the corner, and that's my main problem with it in the context of this world cup - this competition is too big, too important to be trialing this technology. If it's not ready for the premier league or champions league it is NOT ready for the world cup.
None of the pro-VAR crowd has answered why the Premier League/boards/English FA and Champions League teams/board/UEFA do not have the same level of confidence in VAR that FIFA has shown by chucking it into the world cup.
Do they not get decisions wrong in the premier league and champions league?
Blaming human error as a reason not to have VAR, thus leaving ourselves more open to contentious moments of human error, is a pretty specialist/warped mindset, isn't it? It's a bit of a stretch, put it that way.
If the referee has a moment of madness when looking at the screen then that isn't VAR's fault. However, surely it's better for the referee to view the incident from multiple angles, rather than once in real time. This allows for potential issues to be viewed and then a decision made. If the referee then makes an error then there isn't anything more that can be done.
Blaming human error as a reason not to have VAR, thus leaving ourselves more open to contentious moments of human error, is a pretty specialist/warped mindset, isn't it? It's a bit of a stretch put it that way.
If the referee has a moment of madness when looking at the screen then that isn't VAR's fault. However, surely it's better for the referee to view the incident from multiple angles, rather than once in real time. This allows for potential issues to be viewed and then a decision made. If the referee then makes an error then there isn't anything more that can be done.
I agree. But when there are clear incidents which VAR should be used for as it's a so called "clear and obvious error" (again I'll refer to the Pique tackle earlier) . The system needs to be in place where if the ref doesn't review it because he hasn't seen it or dealt with it differently, someone should have the authority to over rule him and insist on the red card being given. No matter how long play has continued or been restarted.
It's the confusion of it use and the uncertainty of when or if it's going to used. Is the biggest problem with the "system" as is currently works/doesn't work.
It seems to me like every time VAR gets a decision wrong, everyone comes on here to have the same debate - the pro VAR people will make excuses for it "its not perfect and can't ever be" and the anti VAR people come on saying it's the worst thing ever and should be scrapped. Then you get the reverse, when they get a call right all the pro's come on heralding VAR as the second coming and best thing since sliced bread an the anti's respond with "well what about XY and Z decisions they got wrong"
Being realistic VAR is here to stay. It is NOT perfect and never will be. BUT there are significant issues with it in it's current form and it feels like a wrong call is always just around the corner, and that's my main problem with it in the context of this world cup - this competition is too big, too important to be trialing this technology. If it's not ready for the premier league or champions league it is NOT ready for the world cup.
None of the pro-VAR crowd has answered why the Premier League/boards/English FA and Champions League teams/board/UEFA do not have the same level of confidence in VAR that FIFA has shown by chucking it into the world cup.
Do they not get decisions wrong in the premier league and champions league?
Sums up my views on it better that I would.
You sure manc...it was trialled in Germany and Australia with great success .../wasnt it...Queue boring idiots response
It seems to me like every time VAR gets a decision wrong, everyone comes on here to have the same debate - the pro VAR people will make excuses for it "its not perfect and can't ever be" and the anti VAR people come on saying it's the worst thing ever and should be scrapped. Then you get the reverse, when they get a call right all the pro's come on heralding VAR as the second coming and best thing since sliced bread an the anti's respond with "well what about XY and Z decisions they got wrong"
Being realistic VAR is here to stay. It is NOT perfect and never will be. BUT there are significant issues with it in it's current form and it feels like a wrong call is always just around the corner, and that's my main problem with it in the context of this world cup - this competition is too big, too important to be trialing this technology. If it's not ready for the premier league or champions league it is NOT ready for the world cup.
None of the pro-VAR crowd has answered why the Premier League/boards/English FA and Champions League teams/board/UEFA do not have the same level of confidence in VAR that FIFA has shown by chucking it into the world cup.
Do they not get decisions wrong in the premier league and champions league?
Sums up my views on it better that I would.
You sure manc...it was trialled in Germany and Australia with great success .../wasnt it...Queue boring idiots response
No, they had issues and controversies there too. Edit...Sorry if pointing out a fact in answer to your question makes me a boring idiot.
Blaming human error as a reason not to have VAR, thus leaving ourselves more open to contentious moments of human error, is a pretty specialist/warped mindset, isn't it? It's a bit of a stretch put it that way.
If the referee has a moment of madness when looking at the screen then that isn't VAR's fault. However, surely it's better for the referee to view the incident from multiple angles, rather than once in real time. This allows for potential issues to be viewed and then a decision made. If the referee then makes an error then there isn't anything more that can be done.
I agree. But when there are clear incidents which VAR should be used for as it's a so called "clear and obvious error" (again I'll refer to the Pique tackle earlier) . The system needs to be in place where if the ref doesn't review it because he hasn't seen it or dealt with it differently, someone should have the authority to over rule him and insist on the red card being given. No matter how long play has continued or been restarted.
It's the confusion of it use and the uncertainty of when or if it's going to used. Is the biggest problem with the "system" as is currently works/doesn't work.
Just a tournament too soon for me.
I think these issues will be ironed out. The Portugal Iran game has probably been the exception to the mainly positive usage of VAR and quick decision making so far. For me the positives far outweigh the negatives and Football has not died a little bit since it’s introduction.
I don't want to speak for DRAddick - but my contention (and believe his too) is that these issues should NOT need to be being ironed out at a major worldwide competition that is the biggest in the sport - there are countless leagues and smaller competitions they could be (and to be fair are) trialing this technology and perfecting it. It's worth remembering the tech wasn't used in the qualifiers either even though FIFA could have implemented it then.
UEFA don't seem to want to touch it with a bargepole just yet (unless i've missed it and they are implementing it for the euro qualifiers? I stand to be corrected on that - but certainly not the champs league).
I won't delve too far into the debate about it's use in the tournament so far and the % of decisions that it has been used or not used correctly because it's been done to death on this thread but to say there is only one exception is not correct in the slightest - even the strongest fans of VAR would admit that.
You are right though it's the future of the game and football will be fine with it in the end.
@Manicmania I was referring to the amount of time it took the ref to actually make these reviews what with all the other histrionics going on. Don’t recall that much chaos in any other match in this World Cup so far and I have watched most of the games.
Blaming human error as a reason not to have VAR, thus leaving ourselves more open to contentious moments of human error, is a pretty specialist/warped mindset, isn't it? It's a bit of a stretch put it that way.
If the referee has a moment of madness when looking at the screen then that isn't VAR's fault. However, surely it's better for the referee to view the incident from multiple angles, rather than once in real time. This allows for potential issues to be viewed and then a decision made. If the referee then makes an error then there isn't anything more that can be done.
I agree. But when there are clear incidents which VAR should be used for as it's a so called "clear and obvious error" (again I'll refer to the Pique tackle earlier) . The system needs to be in place where if the ref doesn't review it because he hasn't seen it or dealt with it differently, someone should have the authority to over rule him and insist on the red card being given. No matter how long play has continued or been restarted.
It's the confusion of it use and the uncertainty of when or if it's going to used. Is the biggest problem with the "system" as is currently works/doesn't work.
Just a tournament too soon for me.
100%.
It definitely has issues that are right to called out, of that there is no denial.
I just found the argument of the human error a bit of a strange one when you consider that their position would be one that meant more human errors.
Surely the Fact of the matter is that some of The reffs don't have enough experience of "top flight" refereeing to be included on footballs biggest stage? I don't mean to be disparaging but how can a match official from Belize be included in a "world class" officiating team?
Ok, I've been fully Stockholmed, I'm on board. VAR here we go... I'm still in the mood for more fairness though (it will take a bit more than VAR to instill justice into this whoring game) How about awarding a penalty for every 10 corners to reward a team going forward, or the introduction of a purple card (sending off + penalty).
My thoughts are simple really. If it increases the amount of correct decisions then I’m for it. The two things that need sorting immediately though is any player or manager suggesting to the ref to use VAR receives a yellow card irrespective if they are proved right or wrong. The other thing is the time it’s taking. I think the ‘handball’ occurred (just) in the last minute of normal time. They kicked off after it was scored in the fourth minute of injury time when 6 additional minutes had been added and the ref played until 90+7.
Surely if we are having this debate on either side of the fence...its not right so status quo...i e moan if its in and moan if its out
Bit like Brexit eh...?
I was about to say why don't Callum and Chippy "change ends at half time". Callum can take Chippy's place on the Brexit page and Chippy can start defending VAR...
The Iran v Portugal second half (I didn't see the first) was an unmitigated disaster for officials, on field and off.
And picking up errors made by summarisers and commentators to defend VAR is "unique"...
I'm no advocate of VAR and I'd be pretty aggrieved if I were Portuguese playing Uruguay instead of Russia due to a dodgy decision, but I have to say that overall it's been better than expected this WC.
Football is the worlds most popular sport because it's cheap to play (all you need is a ball and jumpers for goalposts) and the laws are simple. VAR is neither of those things.
My concern is that it that VAR yet another thing that separates the elite game from the grassroots game. The growing gulf between the top level and Sunday morning football is, in my eyes, the reason why over the past 20-30 years we've seen fewer and fewer people playing football at a grassroots level - especially adult football. And while VAR is only playing small part, it is increasing that gulf.
You saw the two sides of VAR last night, the Ronaldo pen, initially dismissed, upon revue, quite rightly given. BUT the other was the human error, no way was the Iran incident a pen, it doesn't matter how good the system is, if you get incompetent officials. Also, all those moaning old codgers saying the game ran on to "97 minutes, so VAR is shit", does it really matter if it does run on a bit? Presumably, you're sat in your armchair foaming away, think 'shit I'm 4 minutes late for my Sanatogen, and Ive got to get settled with a horlicks before bed...Grrrr'. It s the same people who dont understand that when the board goes up its a 'minimum' of 4 minutes or whatever the allocated time is......a minimum....!
Do me a favour, its a great system, its made the correct decisions, in I guess in 90% of games, and no matter that the other 10% maybe wrong, statistically its done its job, yes of course it needs a few tweaks, but the negativity on here is simply astounding and a tad embarrassing.
You saw the two sides of VAR last night, the Ronaldo pen, initially dismissed, upon revue, quite rightly given. BUT the other was the human error, no way was the Iran incident a pen, it doesn't matter how good the system is, if you get incompetent officials. Also, all those moaning old codgers saying the game ran on to "97 minutes, so VAR is shit", does it really matter if it does run on a bit? Presumably, you're sat in your armchair foaming away, think 'shit I'm 4 minutes late for my Sanatogen, and Ive got to get settled with a horlicks before bed...Grrrr'. It s the same people who dont understand that when the board goes up its a 'minimum' of 4 minutes or whatever the allocated time is......a minimum....!
Do me a favour, its a great system, its made the correct decisions, in I guess in 90% of games, and no matter that the other 10% maybe wrong, statistically its done its job, yes of course it needs a few tweaks, but the negativity on here is simply astounding and a tad embarrassing.
Looking from the other side - the desperation to defend it on here is simply astounding and a tad embarrassing.
You saw the two sides of VAR last night, the Ronaldo pen, initially dismissed, upon revue, quite rightly given. BUT the other was the human error, no way was the Iran incident a pen, it doesn't matter how good the system is, if you get incompetent officials. Also, all those moaning old codgers saying the game ran on to "97 minutes, so VAR is shit", does it really matter if it does run on a bit? Presumably, you're sat in your armchair foaming away, think 'shit I'm 4 minutes late for my Sanatogen, and Ive got to get settled with a horlicks before bed...Grrrr'. It s the same people who dont understand that when the board goes up its a 'minimum' of 4 minutes or whatever the allocated time is......a minimum....!
Do me a favour, its a great system, its made the correct decisions, in I guess in 90% of games, and no matter that the other 10% maybe wrong, statistically its done its job, yes of course it needs a few tweaks, but the negativity on here is simply astounding and a tad embarrassing.
Looking from the other side - the desperation to defend it on here is simply astounding and a tad embarrassing.
That's the thing though. It doesn't need defending, at least not from logical attacks. It has proved itself statistically to have improved the overall accuracy of officiating and has therefore proved its worth. It obviously needs improvements made and referees still need improving (wasn't it ever thus), but it's clearly moving in the right direction.
We're still seeing attacks on here from people who clearly either don't understand how it works or wilfully misrepresent the system, Chippy is still asking what happens if the ref and VAR are both wrong. VAR can't be wrong as VAR doesn't make any decisions, it merely highlights events the referee may want to have a second look at. The referee always makes the final decision. The only failures of VAR are when something is happened that should have been flagged to the referee and weren't. However, without VAR those things wouldn't have been seen by the referee either, so nothing has changed in that respect. The ref didn't see the Pique foul, so VAR not seeing it (or deeming it necessary of review) hasn't taken anything away, it's just riled up the anti-VAR crowd unnecessarily.
We have a system that works, but needs improvement. I don't think anybody on the pro side is trying to deny it needs improvement, but the anti side are denying that it works, and they're asserting that not on the actual results, but purely because they don't like it.
For me, the fact it works is great. The right decisions have been made when it has been used 99% of the time. Where they haven't it has either been down to a) the referee not wanting to look at the VAR review despite recommendations or b ) opinions. Maybe it does need to be looked at with regards to the wider rules, interpretations, and whether or not VAR should be able to overrule the ref rather than offer him the chance to review it.
The wider issues that I have with it are as follows:
1) It is only being used for 4 things....penalties, offsides, incorrect identities and straight red cards. As discussed many times on this thread it either needs to be used for everything or not at all, as there are a lot of other things (corners/free kicks) that could be given incorrectly that could lead to a goal. However, how many VAR refs would be needed to keep a watch on everything?
2) The review time. In cricket, rugby and tennis there are natural breaks which don't occur as often in football. The flow of the game could be broken up quite a lot. Yes, we want to see the correct decisions made, but how many times will the game be stopped and the decision will have been correct in the first place?
3) The fact it is being used in the World Cup. Yes they have trialled it in the German and Italian leagues as well as the FA and Carabao Cups this season. However, they have been trialling the assistant refs behind the goals in the Europa League and Champions League for a few years, yet they haven't been introduced properly yet. Surely they should be introduced first before VAR which has only had one season's worth of trials.
4) Fans in the stadiums and even at home still do not know what is being reviewed. There is no mic link like in other sports, so no one in the stadium knows what is going on and why the decision has been made.
I am happy to see it come in but it is still flawed massively outside the clear parameters around whether or not the correct decision has been made. Trial it for a few more years before using it properly. And make a bloody decision about the assistant refs behind the goal FIFA!
You saw the two sides of VAR last night, the Ronaldo pen, initially dismissed, upon revue, quite rightly given. BUT the other was the human error, no way was the Iran incident a pen, it doesn't matter how good the system is, if you get incompetent officials. Also, all those moaning old codgers saying the game ran on to "97 minutes, so VAR is shit", does it really matter if it does run on a bit? Presumably, you're sat in your armchair foaming away, think 'shit I'm 4 minutes late for my Sanatogen, and Ive got to get settled with a horlicks before bed...Grrrr'. It s the same people who dont understand that when the board goes up its a 'minimum' of 4 minutes or whatever the allocated time is......a minimum....!
Do me a favour, its a great system, its made the correct decisions, in I guess in 90% of games, and no matter that the other 10% maybe wrong, statistically its done its job, yes of course it needs a few tweaks, but the negativity on here is simply astounding and a tad embarrassing.
Looking from the other side - the desperation to defend it on here is simply astounding and a tad embarrassing.
Errr, you and your fellow crumblies are just saying the opposite to me with no facts to back it up therefore it comes across, quite rightly, as a tad embarrassing, actually its almost two tads. ;o)
You saw the two sides of VAR last night, the Ronaldo pen, initially dismissed, upon revue, quite rightly given. BUT the other was the human error, no way was the Iran incident a pen, it doesn't matter how good the system is, if you get incompetent officials. Also, all those moaning old codgers saying the game ran on to "97 minutes, so VAR is shit", does it really matter if it does run on a bit? Presumably, you're sat in your armchair foaming away, think 'shit I'm 4 minutes late for my Sanatogen, and Ive got to get settled with a horlicks before bed...Grrrr'. It s the same people who dont understand that when the board goes up its a 'minimum' of 4 minutes or whatever the allocated time is......a minimum....!
Do me a favour, its a great system, its made the correct decisions, in I guess in 90% of games, and no matter that the other 10% maybe wrong, statistically its done its job, yes of course it needs a few tweaks, but the negativity on here is simply astounding and a tad embarrassing.
Looking from the other side - the desperation to defend it on here is simply astounding and a tad embarrassing.
That's the thing though. It doesn't need defending, at least not from logical attacks. It has proved itself statistically to have improved the overall accuracy of officiating and has therefore proved its worth. It obviously needs improvements made and referees still need improving (wasn't it ever thus), but it's clearly moving in the right direction.
We're still seeing attacks on here from people who clearly either don't understand how it works or wilfully misrepresent the system, Chippy is still asking what happens if the ref and VAR are both wrong. VAR can't be wrong as VAR doesn't make any decisions, it merely highlights events the referee may want to have a second look at. The referee always makes the final decision. The only failures of VAR are when something is happened that should have been flagged to the referee and weren't. However, without VAR those things wouldn't have been seen by the referee either, so nothing has changed in that respect. The ref didn't see the Pique foul, so VAR not seeing it (or deeming it necessary of review) hasn't taken anything away, it's just riled up the anti-VAR crowd unnecessarily.
We have a system that works, but needs improvement. I don't think anybody on the pro side is trying to deny it needs improvement, but the anti side are denying that it works, and they're asserting that not on the actual results, but purely because they don't like it.
Comments
Being realistic VAR is here to stay. It is NOT perfect and never will be. BUT there are significant issues with it in it's current form and it feels like a wrong call is always just around the corner, and that's my main problem with it in the context of this world cup - this competition is too big, too important to be trialing this technology. If it's not ready for the premier league or champions league it is NOT ready for the world cup.
None of the pro-VAR crowd has answered why the Premier League/boards/English FA and Champions League teams/board/UEFA do not have the same level of confidence in VAR that FIFA has shown by chucking it into the world cup.
Do they not get decisions wrong in the premier league and champions league?
edit to add (because I know it's coming Callum...
If the referee has a moment of madness when looking at the screen then that isn't VAR's fault. However, surely it's better for the referee to view the incident from multiple angles, rather than once in real time. This allows for potential issues to be viewed and then a decision made. If the referee then makes an error then there isn't anything more that can be done.
No matter how long play has continued or been restarted.
It's the confusion of it use and the uncertainty of when or if it's going to used. Is the biggest problem with the "system" as is currently works/doesn't work.
Just a tournament too soon for me.
Edit...Sorry if pointing out a fact in answer to your question makes me a boring idiot.
UEFA don't seem to want to touch it with a bargepole just yet (unless i've missed it and they are implementing it for the euro qualifiers? I stand to be corrected on that - but certainly not the champs league).
I won't delve too far into the debate about it's use in the tournament so far and the % of decisions that it has been used or not used correctly because it's been done to death on this thread but to say there is only one exception is not correct in the slightest - even the strongest fans of VAR would admit that.
You are right though it's the future of the game and football will be fine with it in the end.
It definitely has issues that are right to called out, of that there is no denial.
I just found the argument of the human error a bit of a strange one when you consider that their position would be one that meant more human errors.
I don't mean to be disparaging but how can a match official from Belize be included in a "world class" officiating team?
I'm still in the mood for more fairness though (it will take a bit more than VAR to instill justice into this whoring game)
How about awarding a penalty for every 10 corners to reward a team going forward, or the introduction of a purple card (sending off + penalty).
If it increases the amount of correct decisions then I’m for it.
The two things that need sorting immediately though is any player or manager suggesting to the ref to use VAR receives a yellow card irrespective if they are proved right or wrong.
The other thing is the time it’s taking. I think the ‘handball’ occurred (just) in the last minute of normal time. They kicked off after it was scored in the fourth minute of injury time when 6 additional minutes had been added and the ref played until 90+7.
The Iran v Portugal second half (I didn't see the first) was an unmitigated disaster for officials, on field and off.
And picking up errors made by summarisers and commentators to defend VAR is "unique"...
Football is the worlds most popular sport because it's cheap to play (all you need is a ball and jumpers for goalposts) and the laws are simple. VAR is neither of those things.
My concern is that it that VAR yet another thing that separates the elite game from the grassroots game. The growing gulf between the top level and Sunday morning football is, in my eyes, the reason why over the past 20-30 years we've seen fewer and fewer people playing football at a grassroots level - especially adult football. And while VAR is only playing small part, it is increasing that gulf.
BUT the other was the human error, no way was the Iran incident a pen, it doesn't matter how good the system is, if you get incompetent officials.
Also, all those moaning old codgers saying the game ran on to "97 minutes, so VAR is shit", does it really matter if it does run on a bit? Presumably, you're sat in your armchair foaming away, think 'shit I'm 4 minutes late for my Sanatogen, and Ive got to get settled with a horlicks before bed...Grrrr'. It s the same people who dont understand that when the board goes up its a 'minimum' of 4 minutes or whatever the allocated time is......a minimum....!
Do me a favour, its a great system, its made the correct decisions, in I guess in 90% of games, and no matter that the other 10% maybe wrong, statistically its done its job, yes of course it needs a few tweaks, but the negativity on here is simply astounding and a tad embarrassing.
We're still seeing attacks on here from people who clearly either don't understand how it works or wilfully misrepresent the system, Chippy is still asking what happens if the ref and VAR are both wrong. VAR can't be wrong as VAR doesn't make any decisions, it merely highlights events the referee may want to have a second look at. The referee always makes the final decision. The only failures of VAR are when something is happened that should have been flagged to the referee and weren't. However, without VAR those things wouldn't have been seen by the referee either, so nothing has changed in that respect. The ref didn't see the Pique foul, so VAR not seeing it (or deeming it necessary of review) hasn't taken anything away, it's just riled up the anti-VAR crowd unnecessarily.
We have a system that works, but needs improvement. I don't think anybody on the pro side is trying to deny it needs improvement, but the anti side are denying that it works, and they're asserting that not on the actual results, but purely because they don't like it.
The wider issues that I have with it are as follows:
1) It is only being used for 4 things....penalties, offsides, incorrect identities and straight red cards. As discussed many times on this thread it either needs to be used for everything or not at all, as there are a lot of other things (corners/free kicks) that could be given incorrectly that could lead to a goal. However, how many VAR refs would be needed to keep a watch on everything?
2) The review time. In cricket, rugby and tennis there are natural breaks which don't occur as often in football. The flow of the game could be broken up quite a lot. Yes, we want to see the correct decisions made, but how many times will the game be stopped and the decision will have been correct in the first place?
3) The fact it is being used in the World Cup. Yes they have trialled it in the German and Italian leagues as well as the FA and Carabao Cups this season. However, they have been trialling the assistant refs behind the goals in the Europa League and Champions League for a few years, yet they haven't been introduced properly yet. Surely they should be introduced first before VAR which has only had one season's worth of trials.
4) Fans in the stadiums and even at home still do not know what is being reviewed. There is no mic link like in other sports, so no one in the stadium knows what is going on and why the decision has been made.
I am happy to see it come in but it is still flawed massively outside the clear parameters around whether or not the correct decision has been made. Trial it for a few more years before using it properly. And make a bloody decision about the assistant refs behind the goal FIFA!